tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post2985214199374822259..comments2024-01-03T05:18:54.650-05:00Comments on CDR Salamander: Colton goes Salamander on ZUMWALT ...CDR Salamanderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05981221786954902349noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-23005904759529585362011-09-20T22:03:43.107-04:002011-09-20T22:03:43.107-04:00In the modern threat environment, Guns onboard shi...In the modern threat environment, Guns onboard ship are NGFS (Naval Gunfire Support). Having guns forward isolates them from the helos aft. I posit a hull about the size of USS NEWPORT NEWS; 20K tons, roughly 720 ft long. Could probably be crewed by 500 or so; VLS is nowhere nearly as manpower intensive. Triple mount simplifies firing solutions and maximizes HE on target. My CAGN (Nuke Gun cruiser w/guided missiles)-1000 could put more HE on target than a whole section of 155s. What CAG-1000 provides is Force Projection *and* protection. Not much short of special weapons could cause significant damage, and one reactor simplifies UNREP. A terrorist with an RPG would only cause a world-class cussing fit from the Seamen in First Division that would have to go over the side and repaint.Naval_Historiannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-47420938377195708922011-09-20T21:07:34.722-04:002011-09-20T21:07:34.722-04:00sir: the thought of a triple mount of 8"55s i...sir: the thought of a triple mount of 8"55s is refreshing, however they shouldn't be concentrated in one mount. two forward (superimposed oneabove the other) with a third aft would be better as they could engage three seperate targets at once and a lucky hit on the roller path would not "freeze" the entire batch. also those automatic guns can run out an awful lot of ammunition when they are working and storing that all in one place for a triple mount would give the survivability types real heartburn.<br /><br />Cpknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-60721249154030388052011-09-20T19:45:29.614-04:002011-09-20T19:45:29.614-04:00I wonder how much it would have cost to make a REA...I wonder how much it would have cost to make a REAL LCS? One based on say, an LCU, and bristling with guns? I bet we have plenty of 5"/54s from decommed SPRUANCES that could be used.<br /><br />Instead of a yacht or ferry painted Haze Gray.<br /><br />I know someone here is working on just such a vessel.SCOTTtheBADGERnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-54812346575717544362011-09-20T17:38:57.596-04:002011-09-20T17:38:57.596-04:00<span>NH,
The OLDEST of the Ticos is on...<span>NH, <br /> <br />The OLDEST of the Ticos is only 25, and should still be viable for another decade and a half, at least. They were also built to take an 8" gun forward and aft, which would be damned handy. <br /> <br />We modified several gun cruisers in the 1950s and 60s, and got another two decades of service out of them. The Ticos should be considered for same.</span>UltimaRatioRegisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-75365170494782188192011-09-20T17:09:20.450-04:002011-09-20T17:09:20.450-04:00You have to think of it differently.
In these day...You have to think of it differently.<br /><br />In these days of CPI/SPI being on schedule means that a X-work-hour task takes X-work hours. The slope of that curve vs. the calender depends on the expenditure rate of the customer. If the customer gives you money at half the rate anticpated, you are still on schedule if the work takes twice as long, so far as you don't expend more than X-work hours (the work force is half as big). The DDG-1000 spend rates have changed VERY often. Every time they do, the calander dates move. But as long as the Navy isn't paying for X+ work hours, the schedule is held, or said very succintly, SPI=1.0Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-85690028180844479962011-09-20T17:08:22.170-04:002011-09-20T17:08:22.170-04:00DDG-1000 seems to be an answer in search of a prob...DDG-1000 seems to be an answer in search of a problem. The Burke DDGs seem to work well, and the Ticos are getting long in the tooth. A lot of talk here about Engineering, but Combat Systems (the heart and soul of a man of war) has been under-represented. My .02: Cut the losses and start working on a *real* Cruiser. Triple mount 8" 55 forward, maybe a 6" gun amidships, VLS aft and helo hangar about the fantail. Full ASW suite (plenty of space in a CA hull with only one gun mount and VLS)and embark 2 SH-60Bs and you can do all sorts of stuff. All this talk about stealth is good and stuff, but what are you going to do *when* they find you? I would think the notion of un-armored ships with light guns would have become obsolete about the time of the USS Cole incident. Simple, affordable SURVIVABLE systems. Power projection; a gun cruiser can do that for a fraction of the cost of a carrier.Naval_Historiannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-73552761182081204632011-09-20T16:46:28.656-04:002011-09-20T16:46:28.656-04:00THE cause for the Nunn-McCurdy review was taking t...THE cause for the Nunn-McCurdy review was taking the spread costs for seven ships and paying for them with three. The program was recertified by DOD, which is as you say, passing a test. One that is essentially a Milestone "B" re-evaluation with a whole potfull of more data.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-4965346030668376232011-09-17T20:21:48.887-04:002011-09-17T20:21:48.887-04:00well, whatever the selections, doubt if they will ...well, whatever the selections, doubt if they will run the DBR (which is now a Single Band Radar) at it spec'ed full power 24.7.<br /><br />And probably won't run SPY-4 at any power at all !! ( since it will never be onboard DDG-1000 and probably will be cancelled before DDG-1001.)<br /><br /><br />Dual Band Radar (DBR) = all in a single band. Can we ask LM to return all the money they have received since 2003 for SPY-4 ?? What till USS FORD realizes that DBR will not be able to replace all those SPN-43, and long range 2-D and 3-D air radars ! Then, someone might get angry about all this waste.... when a CVN cannot perform air marshalling and control the air space around itself. Retired Nownoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-29388104168679259672011-09-17T06:04:33.764-04:002011-09-17T06:04:33.764-04:00what a terrible choice to put on a skipper.
we ha...what a terrible choice to put on a skipper.<br /><br />we have xxx power, do we use all of it for speed, and none for guns and missiles and the whizbang stuff or 1/2 for speed, 1/2 for guns and 1/2 for whizbang, or 1/10 for speed (with 8" shell splashes in the wake) and 90% to be "transitional" with whizbang, when the bad guys are using mark I mod 0 eyeballs to lay their guns.........<br /><br />Cpknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-49466958656752725912011-09-17T05:55:05.958-04:002011-09-17T05:55:05.958-04:00back in the day usn built battleships with "t...back in the day usn built battleships with "turboelectic drives" they had relatively small steam turbine generators sprinkled around the center of the ship with quite large electric motors directly bolted to the propellor shafts. the reason for this design was that no company in the united states had gear cutting machinery to manufacture bull gears large enough for the horse power that they wanted to use. (96" herringbone type bull gears and the mating pinions).<br /><br />as soon as general electric, westinghouse and delaval acquired the equipment to provide the gear sets usn dropped the turbo drive like a hot rock.<br /><br />i believe that they infact converted a couple of the ships to what we call standard steam turbine double reduction gear drive during construction as the new gear sets became available. <br /><br />conventional wisdom is that the double reduction gear and shafting setup was so much more efficient over the turbo electric drive (claims of 96% machine efficiency were made) that it was no contest.<br /><br />there was a class of fleet tug built with turbo drive (Quapa was one of them) but they suffered from a chronic flaw in that the motor sat in a pit in the motor room and any water that got loose headed right for the main motor pit and then they would have to go through many and varied evoloutions getting the grounds out of the motor.<br /><br />Cpknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-20449761865960466072011-09-17T00:46:52.883-04:002011-09-17T00:46:52.883-04:0015,000 + tons for a destroyer. Well, to push tha...15,000 + tons for a destroyer. Well, to push that much weight thru the water fast, 20 to 30 knots, with much of the hull beneath the surface of the water, is going to require a lot of horsepower.<br /><br />Hence, expect DDG-1000 to be a thirsty ship. So, we save $$$$$ on smaller crew... while expending more money to propell the ship. USS NEWPORT NEWS, an attack boat homeported in Norfolk, just returned home from a 7 month deployment. They steamed ( not gas turbined, not diesel-ed) over 40,000 miles which is more than twice around the globe, except they only cruised around the North Atlantic, North Sea, etc. We can only image just how much fuel USS ZUMWALT will consume to cruise (on electric mains) for a 40,000 mile deployment. <br /><br />Net savings over the life of a ship ? Well, the initial cost is astronomical $6,000,000,000 to build it. But it has a small crew to run into the ground. Then it will drink an extraordinary amount of fuel since it weighs in over 15,000 tons with a new hull form that has much of the hull below water, unlike a traditional TICO or BURKE.<br /><br />Not sure this all makes sense, but it time for TAPS and LIGHTS OUT now. Retired Nownoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-13325646543351700632011-09-17T00:24:20.152-04:002011-09-17T00:24:20.152-04:00right you are!right you are!leeseanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-49386463525431610102011-09-15T09:40:05.876-04:002011-09-15T09:40:05.876-04:00I'm going to challenge you a bit, Lee. The US...I'm going to challenge you a bit, Lee. The US Navy had, up until DDG 1000, not built a new hull in over 20 years. TWENTY YEARS! We used to build new hulls every two years. Each new hull incorporated no more than 2 new technologies / systems. DDG 1000 incorporates 10. They tried to compensate for this with Engineering Design Models (EDM). It was an ineffective risk reduction effort. The result: de-scoping requirements, and a largely ineffective ship that suffers terminal identity crisis.Salty Gatornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-57995838039183413472011-09-14T19:45:44.433-04:002011-09-14T19:45:44.433-04:00Again shows what happens when instead of trying to...Again shows what happens when instead of trying to develope each peaice of the picture seperatly you just throw them together and hope for the best.Jamesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-845251240434634262011-09-14T18:50:26.861-04:002011-09-14T18:50:26.861-04:00Article in NAVY TIMES dated 4 June 2010. By Chris...Article in NAVY TIMES dated 4 June 2010. By Chris Cavas. LM did not deliver SPY-4 radar to Northrop Grumman Gulfport so that it could be built into the deckhouse. AMDR program is going to LM some sort of excuse on this failure to meet it's contract to build SPY-4, which was bid back in 2003. Can't anyone inNAVSEA ever just tell the truth to the American taxpayers, just once ? Fact LM failed to meet her 2003 spec for this key piece of DDG 1000. PERIOD. AMDR spec and hardware is a different program.Retired Nownoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-17958165860000691062011-09-14T18:31:17.285-04:002011-09-14T18:31:17.285-04:00Is it too much to hope that this one isn't as ...Is it too much to hope that this one isn't as screwed up as the other programs out there LCS, LPD17 ? Or will it occupy a middleground: CVNx ?<br /><br />In unrelated news from Hollywood:<br /><br />In the upcoming epic Vern and Mike's Most Bogus Journey, they have challenged Congress to a game of DD(X):<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkZeUa53Jyg<br /><br />'Cept we all lost.Surfcasternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-46049252890269316622011-09-14T18:03:43.106-04:002011-09-14T18:03:43.106-04:00.... and they would have been sued for using Salam....... and they would have been sued for using Salamander from two years earlier without attribution. ;)cdrsalamandernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-80681863658546845682011-09-14T17:56:09.637-04:002011-09-14T17:56:09.637-04:00GAL speaking as someone who actaully had to meet t...GAL speaking as someone who actaully had to meet time and cost criteria, I would say being good at completing a project whose total cost is out of sight, and whose programmatic history goes by more than two DECADES is not something that I would be proud of.<br /><br />There were less costly and more timely approaches to getting some of those then-new technologies into the the fleet (than dumping them ALL in ONE hull design).<br /><br />I think Tim's point is NOT to build anymore of this class and to dispurse the technologies into other more affordable ships?leeseanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-65506635972210196792011-09-14T17:50:43.193-04:002011-09-14T17:50:43.193-04:00Sal FIRST having served under Adm Zumwalt, PLEASE ...Sal FIRST having served under Adm Zumwalt, PLEASE stop using his name with this fiasco!!!<br />Rant off, now my comments:<br />I look at DDG-1000 from a systems acquisition viewpoint. It sucked. They changed base system rqmts. They as you said added multiple immature technologies into one hull. The original ship concept grew out of all proportions from SC-21 because naval officers could not get a grip on all the bells and whistles they wanted to put in a destroyer hull. Did they program officers never discuss the ships with the intended users? Did the issue of cost never get reviewed? Senior leadership let them do that. <br /><br />And then the naval warfare needs changed and instead of stopping and starting with another ship approach altogether, they just modified and modified.<br /><br />I see the DDG-1000 as hyper-expensive technology demonstrators with the Navy only being able to use some of the technologies because as I commented “Any system which takes more than 10 years to bring into service will by definition be using out of date technologies because things change”.<br /><br />The Navy is now and will continue to be faced with huge political obstacles about this ship class. That of course is NOT the Navy’s fault, but is the mentality of most congressional types now especially those with backyard shipyards.<br /><br />I will take a great naval leader to change course and stand up to Congress while doing that.leeseanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-83859158892148510602011-09-14T17:03:57.450-04:002011-09-14T17:03:57.450-04:00I did some checking. SPY-4 was canexed and is bei...I did some checking. SPY-4 was canexed and is being replaced by AMDR.FormerFCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-31181477852879816682011-09-14T14:17:32.319-04:002011-09-14T14:17:32.319-04:00Nudge Steel Jaw Scribe...he tends to specialize in...Nudge Steel Jaw Scribe...he tends to specialize in radars and such...Byronnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-39140104698476664282011-09-14T13:55:22.704-04:002011-09-14T13:55:22.704-04:00...as in Battleships!...as in Battleships!Rodnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-21383016492854692852011-09-14T13:54:09.594-04:002011-09-14T13:54:09.594-04:00The DDG -1000 is supposed to be a “destroyer” at 1...The DDG -1000 is supposed to be a “destroyer” at 14,798 tons? Seems to me we would have a much better ship by dusting off the plans for the Graf Spee (14,890 tons, 11 inch guns, 30 knots, Range 10,200 miles) and updating them with modern systems and a few missiles. If we're going to build pocket battaleships why not call them pocket battelships!Rodnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-19478238726597282192011-09-14T13:17:22.812-04:002011-09-14T13:17:22.812-04:00Galrahn, suppose that back in the summer of 2008, ...Galrahn, suppose that back in the summer of 2008, the Navy leadership had come totally clean and had stated the actual reasons as to why they were proposing cancellation of DDG-1000:<br /><br />--> Too much technical risk, too much programmatic risk, and too much cost & schedule risk had been loaded into the program.<br /><br />--> The initial cost and schedule estimates from earlier in the decade were completely delusional.<br /><br />--> There were significant doubts as to the practical workability of the ship while it is at sea -- seakeeping ability, physical danger to sailors while performing work on deck, etc. etc.<br /><br />--> There were significant doubts as to whether the low-manning automation features would be effective in fulfilling the ship's combat survivability requirements.<br /><br />--> There were significant doubts as to whether the ship's radar signature reduction features would be effective over the ship's full operational lifetime in the face of probable future improvements in anti-stealth countermeasures.<br /><br />In 2008, had the Navy's senior leadership come totally clean, and had they stated the actual reasons as to why they were proposing cancellation of the program, then the <b><strong>Politics of Navy Shipbuilding Interminable (PONSI)</strong></b> would have exacted its own retribution. Those admirals would have been put into stocks on the Capitol Building steps and would have been flogged to within an inch of their very lives by Congressional PONSI-ists wearing black hoods.Scott Brim, USAF Partisannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-25123371029541872142011-09-14T12:58:44.877-04:002011-09-14T12:58:44.877-04:00Any time he can quote an admiral he is warshipping...Any time he can quote an admiral he is warshipping at his alter of make believe on ship design and construction. Loves the LCS and the new LPD and of course the Gen X cruiser.<br /><br />and yes, I proofread that. It says what I meant it to say.bistromathematiciannoreply@blogger.com